FB: Old Dominion Athletic Conference

[new_era]

bow-ties or not, the Generals are for real and the talk about the BC/WL game for one is too soon... both squads have to take care of business this week and as BC showed last week vs GC, falling asleep at the wheel can lead to some quick points the other way (even though it sounds like the game was never in question)...

every one loves to hate on the Generals and highlight "bow ties" and the such, but I'd challenge the board to bring up a team that is more prepared each and every week...

Preperation, discipline and PATD (Pay Attention to Detail) have been the hallmarks of a Generals football program under the reins of Frank Miriello and I can tell you that the focus in Lexingtion right now is not on HSC or BC, but Guilford. 

That is the task at hand.  You will see no BC comments from new_era or the alter-ego Ronnie Cheeks until business is taken care of on Saturday.  Unless to clarify statistical points used out of context.

Game on.

THE CHEEKS HAS SPOKEN

[new_era]

on another note, Bublavi's receiving statistics are not nasty.... they are stupid nasty

[Matt Barnhart (kid)]

BC's defense might seem disappointing from years past, but W&L's isn't all that impressive compared to their earlier years either.  The Generals are giving up 342.8 yards a game compared to the Eagles giving up 406. 

The obvious thing that separates the two defenses is scoring defense: W&L 21.5 and BC 33.6.  The reason for this point differential in opponent scoring (which could end up being the thing that wins/loses the game) is that the Generals have forced 18 turnovers (11 INTs, 7 FRs) while the Eagles only forced 4 (2 INTs, 2 FRs).

In years past, BC has always given up a good chunk of yardage, but it was big plays on defense that kept the opponents off the scoreboard.

[Llamaguy]

bow-ties or not, the Generals are for real and the talk about the BC/WL game for one is too soon... both squads have to take care of business this week and as BC showed last week vs GC, falling asleep at the wheel can lead to some quick points the other way (even though it sounds like the game was never in question)...

  You are right-on Cheeks. Guilford will score points as their new DI transfer QB is solid and has atleast 3 WR's to throw to. They will be pumped to play W&L at home after hanging with HSC & BC.It will be a tight game.
As for the the "falling asleep at the wheel" comment, it looked a little different to me. The score was 48-19 when Clark sent in back-up QB Jeff Highfill. On his second play he pitches the ball over the RB's head, Guilford recovers the fumble and returns it for a TD. The next play from scrimmage Highfill throws an INT to the DE who returns it to the 1 yrd line. Next play, Guilford scores to make it 48-33. I see it more like turning it over to a relief driver than falling asleep at the wheel. Clark was avoiding the infamous "running up the score" comments and allowing a back-up to get reps. I can assure you in a game that is in question BC will be much more business like.

[Matt Barnhart (kid)]

Oh ... and people have mentioned that W&L always plays BC tough...

2004: BC won 34-7
2003: BC won 28-3
2002: BC won 44-14

Obviously W&L's offense looks a lot better this year, but last year it was W&L's defense that was suppose to give BC trouble ... coming into the 2004 game versus the Eagles giving up only 13.7 ppg ... BC hung 34 on them (all through the first three quarters).

The Generals offense didn't score until the 1:56 mark of the 4th.  They still had Greg throwing the ball, the still had no run game, and they still had Jack and Colton lining up at wideout

What do they have that they didn't last year? (other than "homefield advantage" and another year of experience)

[AUPepBand]

The obvious thing that separates the two defenses is scoring defense: W&L 21.5 and BC 33.6.  The reason for this point differential in opponent scoring (which could end up being the thing that wins/loses the game) is that the Generals have forced 18 turnovers (11 INTs, 7 FRs) while the Eagles only forced 4 (2 INTs, 2 FRs).

I can humbly state that Alfred University can be held responsible for 7 of those 18 turnovers that the Generals forced...in AU's first game. I am also pleased to report that since that hot sunny day in Lexington, a 36-22 Saxon loss to the Generals, AU has found a running game (Elmer Newsome, averaging 125+ ypg), righted itself and now has won five in a row and is unbeaten in E8 play with key games coming Nov. 5 and 12 at Ithaca and St. John Fisher.

But in the meantime...W&L has a fabulous fight song, a song I heard way too much of on the afternoon of Sept. 10 (thanks to Tweardy and Martin). How about mustering a real live pep band to play it?

Good luck, Generals!
On Saxon Warriors!

[Llamaguy]

The obvious thing that separates the two defenses is scoring defense: W&L 21.5 and BC 33.6.  The reason for this point differential in opponent scoring (which could end up being the thing that wins/loses the game) is that the Generals have forced 18 turnovers (11 INTs, 7 FRs) while the Eagles only forced 4 (2 INTs, 2 FRs).

How about BC's offensive efficiency? BC is averaging 47pts/game with only 4 defensive take aways for the season. No easy defensive scores for BC this year. What would this team be scoring had the defense given the offense more scores and short fields? I will give credit to the D for stopping teams on 4th and short though, 2 more stops against GC last week.

[Matt Barnhart (kid)]

How about BC's offensive efficiency? [...]

I looked into our efficiency, and it's quite impressive.

We've had 55 offensive possessions, 35 of which we scored on.  So when our offensive takes the field, we score 64% of the time.  More impressively, 32 of the 35 scores are TDs ... so 58% of the time our O takes the field, we score a touchdown.

W&L's offense is a different story.  75 offensive possessions and have scored 29 times (39%).  But 8 of those scores were field goals, making it 21 touchdowns in 75 possessions (only 28%).

Not sure how this stacks up against other teams (shoot, maybe I'll do a little research this week and see ) ... but very interesting point you brought up.  I just supplied the numbers!

[Llamaguy]

Not sure how this stacks up against other teams (shoot, maybe I'll do a little research this week and see ) ... but very interesting point you brought up.  I just supplied the numbers!

Thanks Kid! Just the info I was looking for. I've learned it is much easier on me to just ask rather than take time to calculate it myself.

[new_era]

Oh ... and people have mentioned that W&L always plays BC tough...

2004: BC won 34-7
2003: BC won 28-3
2002: BC won 44-14

Obviously W&L's offense looks a lot better this year, but last year it was W&L's defense that was suppose to give BC trouble ... coming into the 2004 game versus the Eagles giving up only 13.7 ppg ... BC hung 34 on them (all through the first three quarters).

The Generals offense didn't score until the 1:56 mark of the 4th.  They still had Greg throwing the ball, the still had no run game, and they still had Jack and Colton lining up at wideout

What do they have that they didn't last year? (other than "homefield advantage" and another year of experience)

Kid, nice selective reasoning.  If you pull back three more years, you will notice

1999 - WL win in 2OT
2000 - Water wins and knocks out 2 players for the rest of their careers on cheap shots
2001 - WL takes BC to OT in BCs best year

[Ron Boerger]

I'm sure that Kid, like most people who follow college football, assigns more significance to recent games than those played before any of the kids currently at the institutions got there.

[new_era]

How about BC's offensive efficiency? [...]

I looked into our efficiency, and it's quite impressive.

We've had 55 offensive possessions, 35 of which we scored on.  So when our offensive takes the field, we score 64% of the time.  More impressively, 32 of the 35 scores are TDs ... so 58% of the time our O takes the field, we score a touchdown.

W&L's offense is a different story.  75 offensive possessions and have scored 29 times (39%).  But 8 of those scores were field goals, making it 21 touchdowns in 75 possessions (only 28%).

Not sure how this stacks up against other teams (shoot, maybe I'll do a little research this week and see ) ... but very interesting point you brought up.  I just supplied the numbers!

Here is my favorite statistic:

WL 5-1
BC 5-1

Just win baby... I am sure Sydney's offensive efficiency stats are better than the Generals as well, but, in the end, its about Ws, not gaudy statistics.

[new_era]

I'm sure that kKd, like most people who follow sports, assigns more significance to recent games than those played before any of the kids currently at the institutions got there.

point understood, but I was just supplying the reasoning for why it was mentioned that WL played BC tough...

Beat GUILFORD.

[Outsider14]

bow-ties or not, the Generals are for real and the talk about the BC/WL game for one is too soon... both squads have to take care of business this week and as BC showed last week vs GC, falling asleep at the wheel can lead to some quick points the other way (even though it sounds like the game was never in question)...

every one loves to hate on the Generals and highlight "bow ties" and the such, but I'd challenge the board to bring up a team that is more prepared each and every week...

Preperation, discipline and PATD (Pay Attention to Detail) have been the hallmarks of a Generals football program under the reins of Frank Miriello and I can tell you that the focus in Lexingtion right now is not on HSC or BC, but Guilford. 

That is the task at hand.  You will see no BC comments from new_era or the alter-ego Ronnie Cheeks until business is taken care of on Saturday.

Game on.

THE CHEEKS HAS SPOKEN

[new_era]

bow-ties or not, the Generals are for real and the talk about the BC/WL game for one is too soon... both squads have to take care of business this week and as BC showed last week vs GC, falling asleep at the wheel can lead to some quick points the other way (even though it sounds like the game was never in question)...

every one loves to hate on the Generals and highlight "bow ties" and the such, but I'd challenge the board to bring up a team that is more prepared each and every week...

Preperation, discipline and PATD (Pay Attention to Detail) have been the hallmarks of a Generals football program under the reins of Frank Miriello and I can tell you that the focus in Lexingtion right now is not on HSC or BC, but Guilford. 

That is the task at hand.  You will see no BC comments from new_era or the alter-ego Ronnie Cheeks until business is taken care of on Saturday.

Game on.

THE CHEEKS HAS SPOKEN

beat guilford